Jay A

Lives in United States NY, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on May 17, 2004

Comments

Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jay A: I think these equivalence discussions/explanations have done more harm for most people than any one single aspect of digital photography. It has led to many people believing that the same lens, shutter speed, F-stop, ISO combination will give different exposure (lighter or darker image) results if used with different sized sensors. This is just not so. Using a 50mm lens at 1/125, F5.6 and an ISO of 100 will give the SAME exposure (lighter or darker resulting image) whether a full frame sensor, an APS-C sensor, or a medium format sensor is used. The only difference will be that the field of view changes, the noise level changes and the depth-of-field changes.

Chris2201, I did read it, no reason to be insulting to me. I am merely stating that after reading countless articles about "equivalence" I have seen more people confused with misconceptions than people who actually learned anything.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 19:47 UTC

I think these equivalence discussions/explanations have done more harm for most people than any one single aspect of digital photography. It has led to many people believing that the same lens, shutter speed, F-stop, ISO combination will give different exposure (lighter or darker image) results if used with different sized sensors. This is just not so. Using a 50mm lens at 1/125, F5.6 and an ISO of 100 will give the SAME exposure (lighter or darker resulting image) whether a full frame sensor, an APS-C sensor, or a medium format sensor is used. The only difference will be that the field of view changes, the noise level changes and the depth-of-field changes.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 15:24 UTC as 57th comment | 7 replies

Cartier-Bresson once said, "you have to milk a lot of cows to get a little bit of cheese." Yes he shot an awful lot to get his "decisive moments." So what? He GOT his decisive moments and in my opinion (and that of many others), produced some of the greatest photos of all time. If you do not understand his photos, so be it. Maybe they are not for you. Was he aware of the compositional elements that so often came together in his shots? I doubt he thought very much about them, but I would bet that he was at least sub consciously aware of things going on.
"Good photography" can mean 100 different things to 100 different people. To many camera club fans, it means following rules set forward by other camera club members. To camera forum members a good photo may be one that is technically proficient made by an expensive camera. To an artist, it may involve a communication with things such as "form" and "content."
Not all is right for everyone. To each his own as they say.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 00:26 UTC as 70th comment | 2 replies

Obviously laws such as these are not instituted in order to stop criminals who will ignore them anyway but rather for otherwise responsible people who just get careless and/or feel that it is their right to do whatever they want with their expensive toys. Plus I suppose it DOES give law enforcement the ability to prosecute the criminals as well if they are caught.
This has nothing to do with nitwits, liberals, conservatives or otherwise. It is just pure common sense to educate those making purchases of items that have the capability of doing harm on a pretty large scale as drones do.
We don't say "well murderers will commit murder whether there are laws against it or not, so we might as well not have laws against murder." That's the logic of those who speak out against laws such as ones that are desperately needed for toys such as drones.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 21:30 UTC as 26th comment | 10 replies
On article DPReview on TWiT: Is the Sony a9 worth $4500? (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay A: I spent a good portion of my pro career shooting sports when manual focus and 5fps was about as good as it got and frankly I can't see shooing any sport with auto focus let alone needing anything even remotely close to 20fps. I know times have changed,... but really? Is this really necessary? And for $4500?

Well back then a Nikon F3 with MD4 could be purchased for about $700 or so. Yes, it's all relative but I don't think camera prices have gone up proportionally to inflation. Yes you get a whole lot more in a camera these days, but I constantly question just how much of it is really needed. If they would just make an FM2 digital with no LCD, and no AF...just a good ol manual focusing screen that one can actually use to manually focus, a camera that just happened to record to a memory card instead of a roll of film, and sell it for about a grand or so, I would grab it in a heartbeat.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 15:34 UTC
On article DPReview on TWiT: Is the Sony a9 worth $4500? (223 comments in total)

I spent a good portion of my pro career shooting sports when manual focus and 5fps was about as good as it got and frankly I can't see shooing any sport with auto focus let alone needing anything even remotely close to 20fps. I know times have changed,... but really? Is this really necessary? And for $4500?

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 14:50 UTC as 45th comment | 6 replies

If anyone here should possibly need something like this (I wish I knew why) don't worry. 1tb version of them will probably be available for about 60 bucks in a couple of years.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 16:01 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Jay A: This may be a naïve question, but if some border agent in some third world country has stopped you and is wanting to see your photos due to some suspicions he may have, isn't he going to demand that you turn off the encryption so that he may gain access to those photos? If you refuse, aren't you putting yourself in as much dangers as if you might by letting him view the photos, maybe even more? Also, if you have photographed someone or something that might be illegal in that particular country, haven't you yourself put yourself in such danger? Seems to me that what is being asked here is like asking for someone to come up with some kind of protective case that would hide illegal drugs being smuggled out of a country.
I'd think that by far most camera thefts are done by those interested in reselling your $5000 camera on a street corner for 50 bucks. I doubt someone doing that would give a crap about what's on your memory cards.

By the way, I think you are assuming that authorities everywhere act and react the way they do in the free world...
"If the photog doesn't have the "password" to decrypt their photos, then there's no reason to torture them, is there?"
Yeah? Tell that to an isis operative who is demanding to see your photos.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: This may be a naïve question, but if some border agent in some third world country has stopped you and is wanting to see your photos due to some suspicions he may have, isn't he going to demand that you turn off the encryption so that he may gain access to those photos? If you refuse, aren't you putting yourself in as much dangers as if you might by letting him view the photos, maybe even more? Also, if you have photographed someone or something that might be illegal in that particular country, haven't you yourself put yourself in such danger? Seems to me that what is being asked here is like asking for someone to come up with some kind of protective case that would hide illegal drugs being smuggled out of a country.
I'd think that by far most camera thefts are done by those interested in reselling your $5000 camera on a street corner for 50 bucks. I doubt someone doing that would give a crap about what's on your memory cards.

No, I understand you perfectly. What I am implying is that if they suspect you, they may want to hold you and/or your memory cards until you ARE able to show them what's on the cards.
Imagine photographing in an area where a major political event such as an assassination takes place. You are seen with a camera by authorities. You may or may not even have been photographing what happened. The authorities approach you and demand to see the photos. You're going to tell them you can't show them your photos? You're saying the photographer has no choice. I'd AT LEAST like to have the choice. Wouldn't you?

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 17:04 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: This may be a naïve question, but if some border agent in some third world country has stopped you and is wanting to see your photos due to some suspicions he may have, isn't he going to demand that you turn off the encryption so that he may gain access to those photos? If you refuse, aren't you putting yourself in as much dangers as if you might by letting him view the photos, maybe even more? Also, if you have photographed someone or something that might be illegal in that particular country, haven't you yourself put yourself in such danger? Seems to me that what is being asked here is like asking for someone to come up with some kind of protective case that would hide illegal drugs being smuggled out of a country.
I'd think that by far most camera thefts are done by those interested in reselling your $5000 camera on a street corner for 50 bucks. I doubt someone doing that would give a crap about what's on your memory cards.

By "turn off encryption" I meant that he may demand to see the photos before letting you go with the cameras and memory cards.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 16:28 UTC

This may be a naïve question, but if some border agent in some third world country has stopped you and is wanting to see your photos due to some suspicions he may have, isn't he going to demand that you turn off the encryption so that he may gain access to those photos? If you refuse, aren't you putting yourself in as much dangers as if you might by letting him view the photos, maybe even more? Also, if you have photographed someone or something that might be illegal in that particular country, haven't you yourself put yourself in such danger? Seems to me that what is being asked here is like asking for someone to come up with some kind of protective case that would hide illegal drugs being smuggled out of a country.
I'd think that by far most camera thefts are done by those interested in reselling your $5000 camera on a street corner for 50 bucks. I doubt someone doing that would give a crap about what's on your memory cards.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 16:06 UTC as 21st comment | 7 replies
On article Nikon reportedly eliminating 1000 jobs in Japan (518 comments in total)

Very predictable. Listen, Nikon, as long as you keep ignoring the plea to produce a viable prosumer and/or professional mirrorless camera, your numbers will continue to decline.
And for that matter....KeyMission? Really? Have you seen the problems that GoPro has had in the past year?

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 00:43 UTC as 171st comment | 2 replies
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (766 comments in total)

Kodak Brownie Super 27 from 1961

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 14:39 UTC as 546th comment | 1 reply

I think this is actually a funny product. I would assume that the idea behind it is to be discreet. However it looks like it would stand out like a sore thumb, and it makes a shutter sound? Why?
I also wonder...does it take a picture every time you blink?
Funny

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2016 at 21:30 UTC as 34th comment

Obviously this product is not meant for me, but somehow the idea of sending almost $30,000 worth of gear up in the air and possibly out of sight just does not sit very well with me!

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 14:55 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (286 comments in total)

Wish I had one of those things when I owned my D800

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 19:53 UTC as 112th comment

The real reason this is happening is because Steve Jobs always new that Apple customers didn't want to be able to take pictures at concerts! Just like Apple customers don't want memory card slots and the ability to change the batteries themselves!! Or even keyboards included when they buy $4000 Mac Pros

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 15:13 UTC as 76th comment | 1 reply

So, in other words, once this technology is implemented, if I am at a concert, my iphone's camera may be disabled and I can't even take a picture of my wife? Ya know, hardly a day goes by where I don't read about something else that Apple is working on to further infringe on my rights.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 14:32 UTC as 84th comment
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (473 comments in total)

Welcome to the modern world. This is nothing new. About 25 years ago, I bought a software package which touted something or other on the box. When I got home and opened it up, I found out that the feature mentioned on the box would be available with a future upgrade. Fact is we live in a world of profit profit profit and damn the small stuff. Frankly, very little works the way it's supposed to anymore and hardly anyone is ever accountable.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 15:09 UTC as 61st comment | 4 replies
On article 4K video: What you need to know (286 comments in total)

In my opinion, 4k is the new 3D. Something completely unnecessary, being pushed on the consumer in an effort to create a buying frenzy for a new, better, spiffier, whiter than white product that no one wants nor needs.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 16:46 UTC as 51st comment | 3 replies
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »